|
|
Post by darthdract on May 18, 2012 17:59:24 GMT 8
would that affect the war had the Japnese had produce and operated German Aircraft Fighter
|
|
|
|
Post by EXO on May 18, 2012 19:20:45 GMT 8
That's a simple question which has no simple answers - people have been debating it for decades.
Some years ago, I discovered that an old lawyer friend of mine had been in a top secret Japanese Air Industry Evaluation Unit, and this ignited a lot of discussions between about his WWII duties, and his observations and opinions as to the Japanese aircraft industry and its industrial base.
To a good measure, the fear that the allies had that the Japanese would be flying German designed aircraft arose from (a)general ignorance of the Japanese Aircraft industry and the tactical beliefs of those controlling the Army and the Navy(b) a feeling of western racial superiority, and Japanese inferiority.
The ignorance that the West had in respect of Japanese aircraft was immense. The war in Manchuria had allowed the Japanese to develop their aircraft and tactics largely beyond the awareness of the western air attaches, and it was only when the P-40's of the AVG had to face up to the Japanese aircraft, and were found wanting, was it discovered how well developed they Japanese were. Reports by the AVG were largely ignored in the USA.
The feeling that the Japanese could not develop their own breakthroughs in aircraft design seem also to be a hostage of that racial superiority issue. Perhaps the true comparison factors between the respective nations were the desire of a government to develop aviation, and to invest in technology.
For instance, the invention of the flush rivet by Howard Hughes was not seen by the US as being of much significance, whereas the Japanese realized well ahead that it would give a fighter a critical advantage. Only when the US discovered the practical effect that the flush rivet had, (by learning of it from Japanese aircraft) did they adopt it.
The superiority of the Mitsubishi product in the early years certainly relegated a lot of arrogant theories of industrial and racial superiority to the scrap heap - where they deserved to be. The tragedy was how such ignorant theories existed for such a long time.
But what eventually told were the difficulties that Japan had in producing aircraft and training pilots, given the progressively worsening shortages of EVERYTHING. By the end, Japanese production capacity was so destroyed, and its resources so reduced, the most difficult thing to believe is how they lasted so long. In some respects, I find this admirable, how human spirit can persevere in the face of such an overwhelming disaster. My friend (mentioned above) told me that he believed that Japan had essentially been bombed back into the dark ages, and that it was the atom bombs and the surrender which prevented complete organizational collapse, famine etc., by a matter of a few weeks.
So no, I don't think that German aircraft would have made the slightest difference. The factors which did have the effect on the "bottom line" in WWII were, in no particular order, those of uninterrupted industrial capacity, scientific development, government spending, transportation and distribution logistics. Eisenhower is quoted as saying that the three tools which won the war were the the Jeep, the Dakota, and the Landing Craft. To those, I would have added the deuce and a half 6x6, and the Liberty ship.
|
|
|
|
Post by batteryboy on May 18, 2012 20:29:22 GMT 8
Well said EXO. Did you know that during the attack on Clark on Dec 8, 1941, a radio distress call was made and it mentioned: "Messerschmitts over Clark!!!"  Japanese aircraft was downplayed in the early going by the allies and to couple with the "inability" of Japanese pilots to withstand the stress of combat flying (like the shape of their eyes, bow legged, etc.) Even as early as 1920, Japanese bi-planes were of British and French design and they had licenses to produce like a number of Bristol, Nieuport and other RFC aircraft. They even had a few German designs like the Hansa Brandenberg. Moving forward to 1941, when Clark was attacked the US Forces cannot help but wonder (and not accept) the fact the A6M2 Zeros escorting the G3M Nells and G4M Bettys also came from Formosa (Taiwan). It was the first long range over open water combat flight by a fighter plane. One German influenced fighter that saw action with the Japanese Army Air Force was the Ki-61 "Hien" (Tony -- my namesake whose production was to be designed around the Daimler Benz DB 601, which Kawasaki produced as the Ha-40. Then you have the Nakajima Kikka (a copy of the German Me-262 Jet) and the Mitsubishi J8M (a copy of the rocket powered Me-163 Komet). Of the onese I have mentioned above, only the "Tony" saw extensive action and did a good name for itself but not enought to influence the outcome of the air campaign. The Japanese also acquired a number of German aircraft for evaluation like the Me-109E, The Fw-190A-5, an Me-210, a Junkers Ju-87 Stuka and a number of other aircraft. They studied these aircraft and adapted their strengths and incorporated to their own designs. Cheers, |
|
|
|
Post by darthdract on May 19, 2012 0:19:05 GMT 8
Thank you EXO and Battery for the insights.
What amazes me is how the Japanese rebuild it seems like they did not even lost a war the way they dominate the Asian Market
|
|
|
|
Post by The Phantom on May 19, 2012 4:31:33 GMT 8
The Japanese Zero was built by by Mitsubishi starting in 1936 correct?
What does Mitsubishi current car symbol resemble?
They haven't changed it since before the war, gutsy if you ask me.
It's the representation of the propeller of the Mitsubishi Zero.........
Now that's moving the past into the future.
|
|
|
|
Post by batteryboy on May 19, 2012 8:48:01 GMT 8
As with the BMW Symbol (LOGO) It is actually a churning propeller before they were famous in making cars and motorbikes, they used to make aircraft engine. |
|
|
|
Post by darthdract on May 19, 2012 15:06:36 GMT 8
The Japanese Zero was built by by Mitsubishi starting in 1936 correct? What does Mitsubishi current car symbol resemble? They haven't changed it since before the war, gutsy if you ask me. It's the representation of the propeller of the Mitsubishi Zero......... Now that's moving the past into the future. Is that so? I didn't know that. There are some old electric fans with that logo  |
|
|
|
Post by EXO on May 19, 2012 15:23:51 GMT 8
I hesitate to quote Wiki, but the footnote refers to an official portion of the Mitsubishi site at: www.mitsubishi.com/e/group/mark.htmlThe Mitsubishi company was first established as a shipping firm by Yatarō Iwasaki (1834–1885) in 1870. In 1873, its name was changed to Mitsubishi Shokai . The name Mitsubishi (三菱 consists of two parts: "mitsu" meaning "three" and "hishi" (which becomes "bishi" under rendaku) meaning "water caltrop" (also called "water chestnut"), and hence "rhombus", which is reflected in the company's famous logo. It is also translated as "three diamonds". Aircraft prop? Close, but no cigar. |
|
|
|
Post by chadhill on Sept 3, 2012 12:45:29 GMT 8
Does anyone know the story behind this captured B-17 (C or D model?).  |
|
|
|
Post by okla on Sept 3, 2012 22:42:03 GMT 8
Hey Chad....This photo "rattled" my cage to the degree of maybe reading, years ago, of one lightly damaged B-17 being salvaged by the Japanese down at Del Monte or Java. I am not aware of our forces leaving any aircraft in salvagable condition at Clark,etc. I am probably hallucinating again, but that's my "infamous SWAG" for this Labor Day morning. Cheers.  |
|
